Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the approximate radius and Victorian postcode filter, but omits whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements beyond the schema field, rate limits, result ordering, pagination, and what the returned incidents contain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded fragment with no filler, which is appropriately concise. The unexplained 'PRO.' prefix adds ambiguity rather than useful structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete for an agent deciding between near_postcode, incidents, and incidents_all. It says enough to identify a geospatial incident query but not enough to call it confidently or understand expected results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%: access_token is documented in the schema, while postcode is not. The description adds useful meaning by indicating that the postcode must be Victorian and that results are within ~50 km, but it does not specify postcode format or add token semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the resource (incidents) and a specific spatial scope (within ~50 km of a Victorian postcode), so an agent can identify the core operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools incidents and incidents_all, and the leading 'PRO.' label is unexplained.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use near_postcode instead of incidents or incidents_all, nor any stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the spatial wording.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.